526 posts in this topic

Mal: "Snowy hydro - this was the result of the vision of the people that won the Second World War, that defended our freedoms - saved us. And they came home and they built this. There are big dreams in these mountains blah blah blah..."

Have you ever heard a bigger load of wank in your life? I almost puked.

I hereby announce a feasibility study...

Not that I'm agin such a project, conveniently dragged out, just that it is the base politics that I despise. And the purple prose is appalling...

Former trade minister Andrew Robb has taken an unprecedented and important step towards bringing the politicians who vandalised our power and gas systems before the courts.

I emphasise that Robb did not describe as “criminals” the politicians who put NSW, Victoria and South Australia at risk of blackouts and forced hundreds of thousands of Australians to consider installing their own generators or batteries.

He did not discuss blackout danger but, if anything, that is a greater “crime”.

I emphasise that Robb did not say politicians should be prosecuted, but now the “crime” word has been used, if we have power blackouts in NSW, Victoria, or South Australia over the next two summers an enraged community is going to demand that the perpetrators of the “crime” — the politicians — be hauled before the courts.

As I have described previously there is a 75 per cent risk of blackouts in NSW and Victoria. But it might not happen. The politicians could be lucky.

We are fortunate in Australia to have a section of the criminal code that covers politicians and public servants who make false statements or mislead the public. It sets out thatif they are guilty of an offence they can be punished with 12 months jail. Every word uttered by ministers as they vandalised the network and created higher prices needs to be examined to determine whether an offence has been committed. It’s not my job to say they have committed an offence and, as is their right, the politicians will fight any prosecutions with great vigour.

The question for the courts to decide will be whether the community was told by the politicians that, to guarantee supply security, solar and wind installations required backup facilities and a reconfiguration of the power network, which the politicians did not undertake.

In addition, was the community told that blocking gas developments in NSW and Victoria would create supply dangers given Gladstone required southern gas. Prices of energy would have to rise.

Quite rightly, Senate crossbencher Nick Xenophon is refusing to allow tax cuts until the power and gas mess is sorted out. And he is right. Few local or overseas groups are going to make substantial new investments in Australia while power and gas prices are out of control, plus substantial gas shortages and blackouts are on the menu.

The federal government may need to declare a state of emergency and restore Hazelwood, given that a “crime” has been committed, as well as accelerating the Snowy plan and quickly taking other emergency measures.

Like Andrew Robb and my readers, I can’t help thinking about why our politicians made such fundamental and catastrophic errors. I have written about the need for advice outside the public service and the “yes” people among the ministerial advisers. But watch question time in state and federal parliaments and you will see politicians using too much of their time thinking up ways to abuse each other.

That time could be used to make sure we avoid blackouts.

Vast amounts of state and federal government resources are used to duplicate what the other is doing, and usually one bags the other so no decisions can be made. We need to synchronise power structures so states control some areas and Canberra others. When duplication is ended, not only do we save countless billions but real policy can be determined, rather than developing new weapons for the state/Commonwealth fights.

Paradoxically, it was Andrew Robb who in the lead-up to the 2013 Abbott election victory was shadow finance minister and set out detailed plans to save those billions by ending state-federal duplication.

But Tony Abbott made him trade minister, and since then the Coalition in government has set about increasing duplication and infighting, which takes state and federal politicians’ eyes off the ball and leads them to poor decision-making.

Maybe long blackouts and gas shortages are what the community needs to rewrite federation and change the way we make decisions. It is the most important issue in the nation.

Link to post

Share on other sites

If the east coast states are subjected to blackouts next summer (or before), then IMO it would be reasonable to expect for the heads of a few decision makes and their advisers to roll

The question for the courts to decide will be whether the community was told by the politicians that, to guarantee supply security, solar and wind installations required backup facilities and a reconfiguration of the power network, which the politicians did not undertake.

Or rather the question that should be asked of the courts is whether politicians having arsed about for a decade with energy policy have caused a divestment in new power sources that has adversely affected the stable supply of energy...

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Not looking great for skiers in Oz. I was up at the former ACT alpine club at Mt Franklin chalet a few weeks back. There's a nice little wall at the site showing the glory days when they had snow back in the fifties. It burnt down in the 2003 fires and they haven't rebuilt. I think that says it all.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Not looking great for skiers in Oz. I was up at the former ACT alpine club at Mt Franklin chalet a few weeks back. There's a nice little wall at the site showing the glory days when they had snow back in the fifties. It burnt down in the 2003 fires and they haven't rebuilt. I think that says it all.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The paper was written in 2014. It's not "news". It's "olds". We've just had the warmest ANZAC day ever. It's the end of April and still getting days > 27C in Canberra. Sydney will report the warmest autumn ever. Try again.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The paper was written in 2014. It's not "news". It's "olds". We've just had the warmest ANZAC day ever. It's the end of April and still getting days > 27C in Canberra. Sydney will report the warmest autumn ever. Try again.

The article was posted 25/4/2018. It states:

Quote

... It is based on analysing the warming effect of greenhouse gases and other drivers of climate change, from the mid 19th century until 2016...

So how could the paper be written in 2014 when the data was up to 2016?!! Try again.

Have you noticed the record cold on the northern hemisphere - compatible with the Globull warming theory?

That's a bush fire in winter. But It's great that you can still take the family skiing. BTW a wet WA is a signal that El Nino pattern is upon us. Sth America will also flood and the drought will continue. No farmer on the East coast of Oz is as sanguine as you are. I think you'll find they are worried.

That's a bush fire in winter. But It's great that you can still take the family skiing. BTW a wet WA is a signal that El Nino pattern is upon us. Sth America will also flood and the drought will continue. No farmer on the East coast of Oz is as sanguine as you are. I think you'll find they are worried.

and that drought is being caused by global warming (which should increase evaporation) or lack of sunspots that are reducing the evaporation of ground water required for rain?

Where does it rain the most - at the warm tropics or at the polar circles?

Lastly, who is proving more correct at forecasting weather - Socrates or Flannery & co?

I might add that I've also been following Inigo Jones FB site for a while re: weather forecasts. He seems to provide services to farmers.

He also has been doing a better job than Flannery & co. But don't take my word, follow his postings for a while and arrive at your own conclusion, rather than be part of the sheeple where people feel safe.

Edited September 1 by cobran20

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I have no clue as to what your post alludes to except that you you seem to keep repeating some obsession with Tim Flannery. Tim Flannery is not someone whom I have have cited as a source. Neither would I. He is not a climate scientist.

The sources that I do generally cite are CSIRO, NASA, BOM etc. They are climate scientists. They study the field and don't pose certainty but RISK.

The "predictions" that they make are that SE Australia will suffer longer and more frequent droughts as Global warming remains unabated. Bushfires will become more frequent as temperatures rise. This is actually happening. So they are correct so far...

Inigo Jones died in 1954. Unless he is risen from the grave (in which case I would be following his Bookface page with you) it is being run by _somebody_ else whose agenda is uncertain.

The report above addresses your point around evaporation in the tropics due to higher temps and how this affects drought at lower latitudes.

Quote

Observed hydroclimatic changes

The current 13-year drought in the southern Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) and Victoria isunprecedented compared with other recordeddroughts since 1900:

- Being largely constrained to the southern-Australian region;

- Having lower year-to-year rainfall variability; therebeing no ‘wet’ years through this period; and

- The seasonal pattern of the rainfall decline being maximum in autumn but including losses in winter and spring as in previous droughts.

There has been a 13 per cent reduction in rainfall in the southern MDB (the Goulburn-Broken, Campaspe, Loddon-Avoca and Wimmera basins) over the period 1997-2006 compared with long-term averages, which has led to an extreme decline in modelled annual stream ow of 44 per cent relative to the long-term average (1895 to 2006). The stream ow reduction during the current drought period issigni cantly higher than the reduction during theWorld War II drought (23 per cent) and Federation drought (27 per cent). This report considers only the impact of climate on stream ow (other drivers of stream ow such as interception and management activities are not considered explicitly).

Explaining the changes

Factors that have contributed to this stream ow decline include the:

- Disproportionate rainfall decline in autumn

resulting in dry soil conditions at the start of the

runoff season;

- Rainfall decline in winter-spring when most of the

runoff occurs;

- Lack of high rainfall years in the past decade; and

- Higher temperatures.

The very low autumn rainfall and low winter/spring rainfall is linked to rising temperatures and associated changes in the large-scale circulation of the atmosphere.These effects are evidenced by the increasing intensityof the sub-tropical ridge (the high atmospheric pressure cells that tend to persist across southern Australia and are characteristic of the region’s prevailing climatic conditions). A climate modelling study showed that

the observed intensi cation of the sub-tropical ridge can only be achieved when anthropogenic greenhouse gases are included in climate models.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I have no clue as to what your post alludes to except that you you seem to keep repeating some obsession with Tim Flannery. Tim Flannery is not someone whom I have have cited as a source. Neither would I. He is not a climate scientist.

The sources that I do generally cite are CSIRO, NASA, BOM etc. They are climate scientists. They study the field and don't pose certainty but RISK.

The "predictions" that they make are that SE Australia will suffer longer and more frequent droughts as Global warming remains unabated. Bushfires will become more frequent as temperatures rise. This is actually happening. So they are correct so far...

Inigo Jones died in 1954. Unless he is risen from the grave (in which case I would be following his Bookface page with you) it is being run by _somebody_ else whose agenda is uncertain.

...Professor Paul Kench, of Auckland University, who co-authored the study with Dr Arthur Webb, a Fiji-based expert on coastal processes, said the study challenged the view that the islands were sinking as a result of global warming...

The fact is that some islands have been marginally above the sea water level for centuries/millennia and sometime prone to flooding. Another of the great predictions about globull warming is being 'challenged' by the evidence.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The fact is that some islands have been marginally above the sea water level for centuries/millennia and sometime prone to flooding. Another of the great predictions about globull warming is being 'challenged' by the evidence.

Does it matter if they are sinking or not if they are becoming uninhabitable due to sea level rises? The fact is that _some_ islands aren't "sinking" due to the coral that formed them being thrown up by the sea level rises that are swamping them. Whoopee! We're f*cked but were not f*cked for the reason stated. Rather another reason uncovered by - you guessed it - scientists.

This study represents the first assessment of shoreline change from the Solomon Islands, a global sea-level rise hotspot. We have documented five vegetated reef islands (1–5 ha in size) that have recently vanished and a further six islands experiencing severe shoreline recession. Shoreline recession at two sites has destroyed villages that have existed since at least 1935, leading to community relocations. The large range of erosion severity on the islands in this study highlights the critical need to understand the complex interplay between the projected accelerating sea-level rise, other changes in global climate such as winds and waves, and local tectonics, to guide future adaptation planning and minimise social impacts.